1983 JTR(SC) 371
1984 AIR(SC) 160 ; 1984 10 AllLR 46 ; 1984 55 CompCas 356 ; 1984 CriLR 614 ; 1983 2 Scale 816 ; 1984 1 SCC 141 ; 1983 3 SCR 624 ; 1984 1 SCR 815 ; 1984 UJ 25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.
M/s. Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 3191 of 1983 with S. L. P. (Civil) No. 4311 of 1983
Decided on 14-11-1983.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Anil B. Divan, Sr. Advocate and Mr. B. V. Desai, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. P. R. Mridul, Sr. Advocate M/s. Ravindra Narain, D. N. Misra and Ashok Sagar, Advocates with him, (in C. A. No. 3191 of 1983). Mr. M. L. Talukdar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. C. V. Subba Rao and Mr. R. N. Poddar, Advocates, with him, Mr. D. N. Misra and R. N. Poddar, Advocates (in S. L. P. (Civil) No. 4311 of 1983), for Respondents.
Act Referred :MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT : S.21, S.22, S.23
disposal of applications under sections 21, 22 and 23 of the act it is the duty of the government to give reasons in support of the conclusions to which it has come - reasons to be given on the basis of relevant material.
Anil B.Divan, Ashok Sagar, B.V.DESAI, C.V.SUBBA RAO, D.N.Mishra, M.L.Talukdar, P.R.MRIDUL, R.N.Poddar, Ravindra Narayan
ORDER — The order of the Government dated November 30, 1982 which is impugned in these proceedings leaves much to be desired. But we do not propose to admit the appeal since, after hearing a longish argument from Shri Anil B. Divan on behalf of the appellant, we are satisfied on the material produced before us and on perusal of the counter affidavit of the Government that, there were good reasons for passing the impugned order. We must, however, impress upon the Government that while disposing of applications under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 it must give good reasons in support of its order and not merely state its bald conclusion. The faith of the people in administrative tribunals can be sustained only if the tribunals act fairly and dispose of the matters before them by well considered orders. The relevant material must be made available to the objectors because, without it, they cannot possibly meet the claim or contentions of the applicants under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the M. R. T. P. Act. The refusal of the Government to furnish such material to the objectors can amount to a denial of a reasonable opportunity to the objectors to meet the applicants case. And denial of a reasonable opportunity to meet the other mens case is denial of natural justice.
2. On the question of the need to give reasons in support of the conclusions to which the Government has come, the authorities concerned may, with profit, see the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor (1974) 1 SCR 797, Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited v. Union of India 1976 (Suppl) SCR 489 and Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1982) 1 SCR 353..
3. With these observations we dismiss the special leave petition and the appeal.
Spl. leave petition dismissed.
For Citation: AIR 1984 SC 160 = 1984 UJ(SC) 25